Note: Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be
considered as precedent before any tribunal.

ENTRY ORDER

SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2002-340

JUNE TERM, 2003

In re K.M.

}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

APPEALED FROM:

Department of
Education

DOCKET NO. 0207

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

This pro se appeal follows a decision by a hearing officer
for the Vermont Department of Education (DOE) denying a request by K.M.'
s parents, appellants Barbara and Dennis McCarty, to home school the child in
accordance with 16 V.S.A. § 166b. We
affirm.

On May 21, 2002, the DOE Commissioner notified the McCartys
by letter that he was convening a hearing on their plan to home school K.M.
because the Commissioner had significant doubts about the proposed program and
Barbara' s competence to provide
coherent instruction to K.M., then seven-years old. See 16 V.S.A.
§ 166b(a)(5), (e) (requiring that home
study enrollment notice describe minimum course of study and allowing for
hearing if Commissioner has doubts that program will provide that minimum course
of study). The Commissioner appointed a hearing officer, who convened an
evidentiary hearing on June 21, 2002. Barbara McCarty represented herself pro se
and appeared as the sole witness in support of the home study program. The DOE
presented testimony from two witnesses, a guidance counselor at the elementary
school K.M. had previously attended and the DOE'
s home study consultant.

After hearing testimony and reviewing the exhibits entered
into the record, the hearing officer concluded that the McCartys'
program would not provide K.M. with a minimum course of study. The hearing
officer also concluded that Barbara is not able to give her son age- and
ability-appropriate instruction. This appeal followed.

The McCartys challenge the hearing officer'
s order on grounds that it lacks support in the evidence, and they point to
several factual findings with which they disagree. We will not disturb the
findings if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing
party and excluding any modifying evidence, the findings are not clearly
erroneous. Gilbert v. Davis, 144 Vt. 459, 461 (1984). The credibility of
witnesses and the weight to accord the evidence are matters exclusively within
the province of the tribunal below. Id. Even where substantial evidence
to the contrary exists, we will affirm the decision so long as credible evidence
supports the findings. Id.

In this case, the McCartys have failed to demonstrate that
the hearing officer' s findings lack
credible evidentiary support. They accuse DOE'
s witnesses of lying and misstating facts, and allege that the hearing officer
was biased. In essence, the McCartys challenge the order because it does not
conform to their view of the evidence. It was the hearing officer'
s responsibility to resolve differences in the conflicting evidentiary record,
and the record supports his findings. We therefore find no legal basis to
disturb the decision.

K.M.' s parents
next allege that the Commissioner was without authority to call a hearing on
their notice of enrollment. The argument has no merit. Under 16 V.S.A.
§ 166b(e), the Commissioner may
convene a hearing on a proposed home study program when
" the [C]ommissioner has information
that creates a significant doubt about whether a home study program can or will
provide a minimum course of study for a student who has not yet enrolled."
Here, the record reflects that the Commissioner had significant and justifiable
doubts about both K.M' s home study
program and his mother' s ability to
provide instruction consistent with the child'
s age and abilities. For example, the enrollment notice that the McCartys
submitted to DOE is rambling, confusing, and incoherent. The home study
curriculum lacks a sequence and organization for the material'
s presentation. Barbara is the sole instructor for K.M., and the hearing officer
found that her distorted view of reality and her inability to communicate
without jumping from topic to topic were barriers too great to overcome to allow
the proposed home study program. We therefore find no error in the Commissioner'
s decision to exercise his authority under §
166b(e).

Finally, we note that the McCartys'
submissions to this Court lack clarity and coherence. Thus, to the extent that
they raise other issues in this appeal, we decline to address them because their
briefs are wholly inadequate to aid our review. See Johnson v. Johnson,
158 Vt. 160, 164 n.1 (1992) (Supreme Court will not consider arguments not
adequately briefed).